DTUP:
its what we do already
That's what strikes me most about the proposals. The main difference between FIS and Basic, as I see it, is that while FIS only provides traffic info when there's a self-evident collision risk, Basic also provides "generic traffic information". But this is exactly what controllers at many radar-equipped units already do - e.g. "multiple contacts observed in the xxxx area, believed to be gliders, keep a good lokout". Backing this shift is the move from FIS being officially non-radar ("pilots must be left in no doubt that they are not receiving a radar service"), to Basic using whatever info the controller has access to, including radar. Some units deliberately don't provide even generic traffic info under a FIS - they take a literal view of MATS Part 1. But the shift to provision of generic traffic info under a Basic Service will surely lead to an increased workload for controllers because pilots will now expect radar-based generic traffic info.
The other area I can see causing difficulties is the notion that a Deconfliction Service can be provided to departing aircraft climbing to MSA and approaching aircraft descending below MSA. To be fair, this was already a grey area - an aircraft on an instrument approach in Class G which has been transferred to tower is still formally being monitored by approach - but the proposals don't, it seems to me, clarify things. If an aircraft is on a Deconfliction Service and has established on the ILS and been transferred to Tower, then pop-up conflicting traffic appears, the terms of the Deconfliction Service suggest that pilots will expect to be separated from that conflict. The draft CAP 774 proposes that there will then be an RT exchange including asking if they're happy to continue, then if not, warnings about terrain. Sounds messy. And if they've already transferred to Tower will they be sent back to approach, or is the reality that all they can do is tell Tower to tell them to go around?
NS